Campaigns Wikia talk:Voting Procedure
This is primarily an attempt to summarize the existing voting procedure so that it can become an official policy and to describe a course of action for eventualities that have not yet occurred, such as a tie vote. Did I miss anything? --whosawhatsis? 21:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC) Asterisk Admins, since this is an attempt to summarize the existing procedure, which is not yet official, should it be marked with an asterisk (indicating that it is implemented pending vote) on the policy page? It should only be marked as such based on a consensus of the the admins, so its your decision. --whosawhatsis? 20:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC) :Agreed. Chadlupkes 23:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC) After one month "After one month of debate, a policy vote will take place.". Isnt too much one month? Iasson :One month may be a bit long, but that's the standard that we've been using all along. At this point, I'm trying to summarize the existing procedure so that it can be made official, but we can discuss reducing this period. Any other opinions? --whosawhatsis? 22:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC) :: I am aware a little bit of the minimum percentage of voters that has to participate, in order for the Vote to become a valid one. Shouldnt we define this minimum participation, either as plain number or as a percentage of the total population? I mean, are 4 voters enough for a policy to become an official policy? Iasson 22:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC) :: You may say, if there arent enough then an amendment is allowed, where more voters may participate and change the official policy of the 4 persons. But what if the official policy of the 4 persons denies amendments? Or what do we answer to someone who argues that this lack of particpation is just a sign that no policy must be created on a specific subject? Iasson :: Regarding ammendments and official policies there is also the Graphe_paranomon that should be mentioned somewhere. I mean, official policies that contradict eachother must not be valid at the same time. If the participation of voters, as a percentage of the total population, is too low in every Vote, then many graphe paranomon and other contradictions may occur. Iasson 22:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC) :::I have modified the proposal to address conflicts between policies. --whosawhatsis? 23:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC) in the case of a policy conflict, the older policy takes precedence Just a few questions, that I cannot answer yet: Should be the older policy, or the policy with the higher acceptance percentage? And how the acceptance percentage can be associated to the participation on the policy's Vote? Iasson 00:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC) :Suppose we have a one year old policy, passed as (2 accept,1 deny,0 abstain). Then a new policy, that contradicts the old policy passed as (15,2,0). Do you think it is reasonable for the older policy to take precendence? And what about the newest third policy that contradicts the first two and passed as (45,6,0) ? Iasson 00:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC) ::Yes, it is reasonable, because the the new policy could have included a provision to amend/repeal the old policy. Without such a provision, it is conceivable that users would vote for a policy not realizing how it will affect existing policies, so it must be specifically mentioned. New policies can repeal old ones, but old policies can't repeal new ones, so if that is not done, the old one must take precedence. --whosawhatsis? 01:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC) ::: I see you point. Your proposal is much better now. But could you please explain more the phrase : :::"unless the newer specifically addresses the applicable interpretation of the other."? :::I think this above phrase is a little bit unclear. Is the below somehow more clear? :::"A newer policy that contradicts an older policy should not be proposed standalone, but it should always be proposed as amendment, no matter how many support the newer policy. PAP is a cornerstone for all policies. No policy can deny amendments, amendment denial can only take place as amendment in the amendment policy." ::: But then, again, who is about to judge that a policy contradicts another? And what if a policy contradicts another but the policy writer, on purpose or by mistake, do not specifically addresses the applicable interpretation of the other, in order to confuse things? :::The proposed system is based on interpretation rather than on numbers. So wee need an arbitrator to judge whether a policy contradicts another. If we dont want someone to have the judging authority, then the phrase "unless the newer specifically addresses the applicable interpretation of the other." should be removed or clarified. :::Iasson 09:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC) ::::Administrators enforce the rules, and to do so, they must interpret them. An example of addressing the interpretation of a policy is 1POV, which creates a unique interpretation of APOV for application to articles marked as 1POV, or CatP, which addresses the interpretation of APOV when applied to the categorization of articles. --whosawhatsis? 20:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC) ::::: That is exactly the problem. If we have one policy that depends on the interpretation, then two administrators may interpret differently so we have two policies instead of one!. Iasson 18:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC) ::::::Every policy, like every law, needs to be interpreted. If that weren't the case there would be no reason for courts, judges or juries. --whosawhatsis? 00:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC) ::::::: Policies and laws do not need to be interpreted if they depend on numbers rather than on words. God's laws for example, they are formulas, equations and mathematics, they depend on numbers, and thats how universe is created and working. :::::::In our case, if you say "in the case of a policy conflict, the older policy takes precedence" then your policy depends on numbers, obviously no interpretation is needed for which policy is the older. The quote is synonymous to the Graphe_paranomon. :::::::But if you say "in the case of a policy conflict, the older policy takes precedence, '''unless' the newer specifically addresses the applicable interpretation of the other." then your policy depends on the interpretetion and on the '''good faith of the newer policy' not to specifically address the applicable interpretation of the older policy. This unless is the problem. Iasson 11:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC) Voting I think it would be reasonable to require that two conditions be met for the vote to be considered a success: #'Abstain' votes must not represent the absolute majority of valid votes. #There must be more votes in favor that against. I think that if a policy were to be voted 4/3/39, for example, it shouldn't be considered a community decision. I'll leave it to the author to add this if he agrees. --ШΔLÐSΣИ 03:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC) :I see your point, and I've considered the same thing, but I'm not sure... it kinda makes sense with an example like yours, but what happens if it's, say, 15/0/16? Does something special happen if the majority abstains? For instance, maybe if the majority abstains, it automatically goes back to the debate-and-edit phase, with another vote in a month (or less?)? It may not seem right for it to become official policy if the majority abstains, but it also doesn't seem right for it to go to failed if a clear majority of the non-abstentions are approvals, and I don't want to add it to the proposal until those questions are answered. --whosawhatsis? 03:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)